The present research tested the hypothesis that the political structure of conflicting groups moderates perceived legitimacy of intergroup aggression. In two experiments, participants read scenarios of fictitious summer camps in which members of one group aggressed members of another group. The political structure of both the perpetrator and the victim groups was described as either egalitarian (defined with democratic decision-making procedures) or hierarchical (authoritarian decision-making procedures). Results of both experiments showed that aggressions perpetrated by members of egalitarian groups at the expense of members of hierarchical groups were evaluated as less illegitimate than aggressions committed in the three remaining conditions. This effect is discussed as a function of the higher social value attributed to democratic groups.
Allison, S. T., & Messick, D. M. (1987). From individual inputs to group outputs, and back again: Group processes and inferences about members. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology(Vol. 8, pp. 111-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
Azzi, A. E.,& Jost, J. T. (1997). Votes without power: Procedural justice as mutual control in majority-minority relations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 124-155.
3.
Baldus, D. C., Woodworth, G., & Pulanski, C. A., Jr. (1990). Equal justice and the death penalty: A legal and empirical analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
4.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
5.
Beauvois, J. L. (2005). Les illusions libérales, individualisme et pouvoir social: Petit traité sur des grandes illusions[Liberal illusions, individualism and social power: Little treatise on big illusions]. Grenoble, France: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
6.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
Bushman, B. J.,& Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy?Psychological Review, 108, 273-279.
8.
Crandall, C. S., & Beasley, R. K. (2001). A perceptual theory of legitimacy: Politics, prejudice, social institutions, andmoral value. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations(pp. 77-102). New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Doyle, M. (1983). Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12, 205-235.
10.
Dumont, M., Yzerbyt, V., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. H. (2003). Social categorization and fear reactions to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1509-1520.
11.
Feather, N. (1999). Judgments of deservingness: Studies in the psychology of justice and deservingness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 86-107.
12.
Fincham, F. D., & Jaspars, J. M. (1980). Attribution of responsibility: Fromman the scientist toman the lawyer. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 81-138.
13.
Gordijn, E. H., Wigboldus, S., & Yzerbyt, V. (2001). Emotional consequences of categorizing victims of negative outgroup behavior as ingroup or outgroup. Group Processes& Intergroup Relations, 4, 317-326.
14.
Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and responsibility. New York: Oxford University.
15.
Healy, A. F., Hoffman, J. M., Beer, F. A., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (2002). Terrorist and democrats: individual reactions to international attacks. Political Psychology, 23, 439-467.
16.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). Fromacts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 219-266.
17.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.
18.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.
19.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
20.
Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1998). Group status and perceptions of homogeneity. InW. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology(Vol. 9, pp. 31-75). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
21.
Malle, B. F. (1999). How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 23-48.
22.
McKillip, J.,& Posavac, E. J. (1975). Judgments of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality, 43, 248-265.
23.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.
24.
Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 527-553.
25.
Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58, 1055-1078.
26.
Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86, 61-79.
27.
Reeder, G. D., Kumar, S., Hesson-McInnis, M. S., & Trafimow, D. (2002). Inferences about the morality of an aggressor: The role of the perceived motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 789-803.
28.
Robbennolt, J. K. (2000). Outcome severity and judgments of “responsibility”: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 2575-2609.
29.
Sampson, E. E. (1988). The debate on individualism: Indigenous psychologies of the individual and their role in personal and societal functioning. American Psychologist, 43, 15-22.
30.
Shaver, K. G. (1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101-113.
31.
Staerklé, C. (2005). L’idéal démocratique perverti: Antagonismes dans les représentations du non-occident [The perverted ideal of democracy: Antagonism in representations of the non-West]. In M. Sanchez-Mazas & L. Licata (Eds.), L’autre: Regards psychosociaux [The other: Psychosocial views] (pp. 117-148). Grenoble, France: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
32.
Staerklé, C., Clémence, A., & Doise, W. (1998). Representation of human rights across different national contexts: The role of democratic and non-democratic populations and governments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 207-226.
33.
Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel& W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations(pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
35.
Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323-345.
36.
Yzerbyt, V., & Rogier, A. (2001). Blame it on the group: Entitativity, subjective essentialism, and social attribution. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology,-justice, and intergroup relations(pp. 103-134). New York: Cambridge University Press.
